Asking An Atheist [Pic]

Submitted by: SweepOfDeath 2 years ago Misc

I agree with this metaphor.
There are 76 comments:
Male 12,365
[quote]Something doesn`t exist unless there is proof of it`s existence.[/quote]

By that standard, nothing exists. The only thing that can be *proven* by strict standards is the correctness of pure maths (which does not apply to any application of any maths to reality).

[quote]Any shred of evidence that can`t be explained away will do.[/quote]

That`s not proof. That`s evidence. Different thing.

You`re citing an impossibly high standard (proof) and a very low standard (any shred of evidence for which there isn`t currently an explanation) at the same time and portraying them as the same thing. That doesn`t work.

Also, by your second standard numerous gods were "proved" to exist in the past and could be today with some more effort.

Lightning is a good example. It couldn`t be explained away in northern Europe ~2000 years ago. So it "proved" the existence of Thor, right?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angilion,
"we do not have evidence that deities do not exist. We have an absence of evidence that they do." [/quote]

Wrong person. I didn`t write that. Although it is strictly true, I think it`s close to meaningless because it`s true of anything specifically created to be unfalsifiable.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]we have more proof of unicorns then of God[/quote]
Again, you`re confusing `proof` and `evidence`.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]Something doesn`t exist unless there is proof of it`s existence[/quote]
So... the Higgs Boson only recently came into existence?

Lacking proof of existence does not prove non-existence.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
HumanAction:
"It`s important to use the correct words lest you look arrogant. Firstly, there is no "proof" either way; we only have evidence."
-------

Actually, the falsities in the Bible, the very book that the entire religion is based on, are more than enough to use the word "proof". If the religion is based on the word of God and that word is interpreted from the Bible and the Bible is so contradictory and messed up that in no way is it correct, then the "Word of God" is not correct and you are basing your religion on muddled together group of stories that are wrong. The Bible, all on it`s own, proves that Christianity is incorrect. It doesn`t prove that there is no God, but you can safely say there is no Christian God.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
@Angilion,
"we do not have evidence that deities do not exist. We have an absence of evidence that they do."
------

In my mind, this is the same thing. Something doesn`t exist unless there is proof of it`s existence. Any shred of evidence that can`t be explained away will do. Because more books have been written containing unicorns, and the entire Christian religion is based on a book, it`s safe to say that we have more proof of unicorns then of God. How much credence then do we give to unicorns? Is it public perception? Because so many people grew up being told the Bible was right, does that make it real? If I raised my kid, telling her that unicorns were real, would that make it so?

0
Reply
Female 4,349
lol
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So the Greek prefix `a-` does, as I thought, indicate absence and not denial. But that etymology of `atheism` is a convincing argument. It does make more sense to interpret it as atheos-ism rather than a-theism. It`s more consistent, anyway.

Something for me to think about.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Mr_Pedo_Bear, I followed the links you provided...and they do not support your position.

The first link, to a list of Greek prefixes, give a- or an- as meaning "not, without, (having) no". An absence of, not a denial of.

I didn`t know the word "abacterial", but a quick look online defines it as "not being caused by or characterised by the presence of bacteria".

However, the etymology you give is a convincing argument. I had been interpreting it as "no ideology of gods", but it does seem to make more sense to interpret it as "ideology of no gods". With that interpretation, "atheos" fits me but "atheism" doesn`t.

Which leaves me without a quick way to describe my position. Agnosticism doesn`t cut it because it already has a definition (Huxley`s one), which has a different meaning and a different scope of application (it`s a general principle, not only a religious one).

S
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Godzilla can kiss my ass.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angilion and to answer you specific question it`s well know the greek prifix of a- is . denial And can be seen in many words we use especially in medical terms abacterial for instance
0
Reply
Male 997
(cont) . Then you add ism to get ( Mono + theos ) + ism to get ideology of one god.
So we can argue the prefix acts first. If you take suffix acting first monotheism becomes mono(theo +ism)=one ideology of god. So that would include atheism and polytheism as both have a single idea of god. Former that he does not exist in the latter and other that there is more than one.

No one uses that definition of monotheism, therefore we should apply the prefix in atheism and get belief there is no god.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angilion Atheism has 3 components root word “ theos ” = God Privative a- prefix and the suffix ism from greek idmos or ideology of the word. Which order do they modify the root? If you say – ism modifies the word Theos you get ( Theos + Ism) = Theism = Ideology of God. Then the privative a + ( theos + ism)= atheism = no ideology of god. So you said ideology is negated rather than god and that would be correct not belief in god.

But if you apply prefix a first you get a + theos – atheos = the actual greek word meaning godless, or no god. You then add ism to give ( a + theos )ism, you get ideology of athoes, ideology of no god or ideology of believes in no god.

Which one to use?
Consider the similar “ monotheism ” meaning one believes in a single god. But break it done to mono - theos = one god. Then you add ism to get ( Mono + theos ) + ism to get i
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchouli

[quote]Because there is adequate proof that it is false, we can right it off and move on. No faith required.[/quote]
It`s important to use the correct words lest you look arrogant. Firstly, there is no "proof" either way; we only have evidence.

Secondly, we do not have evidence that deities do not exist. We have an absence of evidence that they do.

What should be said is that we lack evidence supporting the existence of deities, as opposed to stating that we have proof of their non-existence; it is an important difference.
0
Reply
Male 997
To word it another way. Is the balance of evidence in there being no supernatural entity? Yes. Why? we have no observable evidence of said entity or any way to ascertain motives of beliefs of said possibly entity. Is there logical evidence for any of the major religions? No.

Does that mean there is no chance at all of their being said entity. No.

On the balance of probabilities does it matter enough to change our behaviour to fit the tiny chance of said entity? No

Welcome to pragmatic agnosticism.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I wasn`t aware that the `a` prefix in ancient Greek implied denial. Can you point me at some references to more information on that? Was it so for all dialects?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]There are degrees of belief and I keep saying it`s absolute beliefs which are arrogant. Where as you can be 99.99% recurring that you`re not going to turn into a pumpkin as you said by being no observable of evidence of it ever happening. Changing your behaviour for that belief, rational? No. Does it mean that, there could be some supernatural entity which suddenly discloses itself and punishes you staying out by turning you into a pumpkin. Still a possibility, we just cannot know. [/quote]

OK, so your position is consistent. No certainty outside of pure maths, even when I come up with a deliberately silly example.

While I agree with that in an abstract sense, I wouldn`t say that believing that you will turn into a pumpkin if you stay out past midnight is the same as believing that you won`t. Not really. I agree that it`s impossible to absolutely prove that it won`t happen, but I don`t consider the two positions to be *equally* illogical.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angligon I said more traditional Athiesm definitions . Etymolgoy of the word comes from the 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods" Which I would argue heads more to saying there are no goods with "without god" "Denying the god" origin of the word
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]By your reasoning we should only use archaic and original meanings of things?[/quote]

You spoke of using the traditional definition, not me.

I replied to point out that you weren`t using the truly traditional definition, i.e. the original definition.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angilion [quote]Personally, I don`t assign equal weight to things in that way.[/quote]

I`d already said this to HolyGod [quote]The reasonableness of changing your actions on said beliefs is a different matter all together. [/quote]

There are degrees of belief and I keep saying it`s absolute beliefs which are arrogant. Where as you can be 99.99% recurring that you`re not going to turn into a pumpkin as you said by being no observable of evidence of it ever happening. Changing your behaviour for that belief, rational? No. Does it mean that, there could be some supernatural entity which suddenly discloses itself and punishes you staying out by turning you into a pumpkin. Still a possibility, we just cannot know.

As we found out more the rationality and strengths of beliefs change. But unless we know absolutely everything there is still an unknown. There is in my view the illogicality of absolute beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 997
Words change over time. Abandon - We use the word to mean “give up completely”, like abandoning hope, abandoning a baby or surrendering ourselves to emotion. But in 14th century Middle English it meant “to subjugate or subdue” someone or something – coming from the French phrase “mettre a bandon” meaning “to give up to a public ban”.

Broadcast meant to sow seeds by hand in a certian fashion.

By your reasoning we should only use archaic and original meanings of things?

I said i was picking a meaning. I also said within the meanings picked, this is the position. You`re arguing about the definitions. I picked two arguable and recognisable definitions and stated why it`s illogical when using those accepted definitions.

I disagree an athiest who says they know there is a god. But if one says
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I equate any absolute belief in anything that cannot be proved illogical and as bad as each other. Saying with 100% certainty that there is not some supernatural force behind the rules of the universe is equal to saying with 100% certainty there is.[/quote]

That`s a consistent position...as long as you live by the idea that you cannot be completely certain of anything at all other than pure maths without any application to reality. That`s the only thing that can be truly proved.

Personally, I don`t assign equal weight to things in that way. For example, I can`t *prove* that I won`t turn into a pumpkin if I stay out past midnight. Given the completely lack of evidence of people turning into pumpkins because they stayed out past midnight, I consider it unlikely enough to not give it any thought.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Holygod, you can say with a certain degree of certainty, to the extent that you can reasonably discount the belief. But that Skittle pooting tiger may have shat out the big bang which started all of this. You cannot quantify unknowns, moment you can they stop being unknowns.

I`m equating it with being illogical and arrogant. It`s claiming to know something you can`t possibly know.

The reasonableness of changing your actions on said beliefs is a different matter all together. But stating with 100% certainty that there could be no way shape or form some meta physical reason for anything in the history of the universe or it`s creation. Is just as arrogant claiming `my deity` did it. Because you cannot know, you`re having some degree of faith in your belief in that. However reasonable the belief is it`s still unknowable.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And you`re turning this into an argument of semantics of whose definition to use.[/quote]

Considering that the word "agnosticism" was created by one person to describe a specific position, I think it`s reasonable to use his definition.

Defining "atheism" to exclude most atheists doesn`t seem like a good idea to me, either. You talk about using the traditional definition, but you`re still just picking one of them. If you want to use the truly traditional definition, i.e. the original definition, almost everyone in the world today is an atheist.

But people are using different definitions for various reasons, which is why I tend to make my position clear by stating "agnostic atheist" rather than just "atheist".
0
Reply
Male 4,746
It really boils down to a simple thing. People used to need religion to explain why there were plagues and droughts. When kings needed a way to control the masses, they utilized religion. Over the years, it has been perfected to that point that the brain washing is so complete that we have modern day, normally sane and intelligent people, believing in wizards.
0
Reply
Male 7,915
MrPedoBear

"Saying with 100% certainty that there is not some supernatural force behind the rules of the universe is equal to saying with 100% certainty there is."

By that rationale saying with 100% certainty that there is not an invisible six-legged tiger that poops skittles living in my attic is equal to saying with 100% certainty there is.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
I don`t have faith that there is no God. It`s not a faith issue at all. One does not require faith to disbelieve in something that is ludicrous. The same way it requires no faith to disbelieve in fairies. It`s a story book character. Because there is adequate proof that it is false, we can right it off and move on. No faith required.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Daegog Welcome to Apathetic Agnosticism , already been outlined and name claimed.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angilion I equate any absolute belief in anything that cannot be proved illogical and as bad as each other. Saying with 100% certainty that there is not some supernatural force behind the rules of the universe is equal to saying with 100% certainty there is.
0
Reply
Male 1,382
There is very little difference between theists and atheists..

Both know the unknowable, and both are full of crap.

I invite you all to join my ignoramus movement (the name is still up for debate), we know nothing, and we admit that ANYONE`S beliefs might be correct, we just doubt it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You`re right, pixies could be magic which creates the laws of physics. You can`t prove otherwise you can only prove what their power does. Same way a Christian can`t prove the holy spirit does it. And those unanswered questions there will be a potential for a super natural reason.[/quote]

So do you regard thinking that the magic flight pixies exist as being the same as thinking that they don`t - each position equally a belief, equally an act of faith?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Of course atheists are angry at God, it`s why they are atheists. They are the "I hate God" club. [/quote]

Your lack of rationality and logic has reached truly spectacular depths.

You are seriously arguing not only that people who don`t believe your god exists hate your god, but that the whole reason why they don`t believe your god exists is that they hate your god.

You`re so desperate to smear atheists that you`re making yourself look silly.

You`re not stupid. How on earth can you believe such a ludicrous statement?

Do you hate Bishnot, the fish-headed god of Nu2 Lupi 3? I`ve just made them up, so I`m assuming that you don`t believe in them.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angilion [quote]Science is about *how* things happen, not *why* they happen. Science can describe how flight occurs, but it can`t prove that the processes it describes aren`t caused by undetectable magic pixies using their magic powers. [/quote]

You`re right, pixies could be magic which creates the laws of physics. You can`t prove otherwise you can only prove what their power does. Same way a Christian can`t prove the holy spirit does it. And those unanswered questions there will be a potential for a super natural reason.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angilion I could send you links to many different papers, discussing the different definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism. It is highly blurred. And there is academic weight behind several of them. And you`re turning this into an argument of semantics of whose definition to use.

I have outlined the structure of atheism and agnosticism which 5 cats, me and others accept. IT is pointless to argue it will just be a reference battle.

But using those definitions. We see it as arrogant and having an unfounded belief to say there is no chance and i know there is no super natural entity in any part of the chain. And that would make me a Apathetic Agnostic/Pragmatic Agnostic
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Where as your pixies we know that pixies aren`t responsible for flight because we know the science behind it.[/quote]

Science is about *how* things happen, not *why* they happen. Science can describe how flight occurs, but it can`t prove that the processes it describes aren`t caused by undetectable magic pixies using their magic powers.

You should regard lack of belief in the magic flight pixies the same way you regard lack of belief in god(s) - both are non-falsifiable explanations of why things happen the way they do.
0
Reply
Male 997
Angilion cont We don`t know what spark started life in the pri mordial goo. We know a lot how we evolved and the universe and we are forever learning more. But until we discover everything, there is always going to be the question. What started the falling dominoes? And at this moment in time we simply cannot know. Where as your pixies we know that pixies aren`t responsible for flight because we know the science behind it. Where as we don`t know the science behind the initiation of certain events. And we cannot know there was not some metaphysical force until we work out a physical force reason.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]We understand the physics behind flight.[/quote]

Can you *prove* that it`s not the result of magic spells cast by undetectable pixies?

Trick question - I made it up deliberately as a non-falsifiable position, so it is inherently impossible to prove it false. Just like the existence of god(s).
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Where as the correct response would be to be Agnostic. Which is we cannot not know if there is a god or not.[/quote]

No, it isn`t. This is the definition of agnosticism, as stated by the person who made the word up:

[quote]That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

Thomas Huxley, in 1889.[/quote]

(A)gnosticism and (a)theism are positions on different subjects, not different positions on the same subject.

I`m an agnostic atheist. They are about different things, not different positions on the same thing.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Angilion
[quote]Atheism is not a belief, so you`re doubly wrong to say that atheists have faith in their beliefs (although an atheist may also have some beliefs, atheism isn`t a belief) [/quote]


There are a few different definitions of Atheism. Ranging from a very wide rejection of belief and a more narrower anti belief. And I would go for the more traditional and narrowed down version that it`s a belief that no gods exist. Which I would contrast with Agnosticism which is not knowing. As it is a certain arrogance to out and right say no gods exist when in reality you cannot prove that anymore than a atheist so the only logical thing is to say we don`t know.

[quote] Undetectable pixies are responsible for all flight - they use their magic to hold up insects, birds, planes, helicopters, etc. There`s no evidence they exist, of course - they`re undetectable! [/quote]
We understand the physics behind flight. We don`t know what intiated the big bang
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Atheists cannot know their is no supreme powerful being which created us, any more than a bible basher knows there is a god. And believing there is no good is having faith in that idea.[/quote]

There are two problems with that argument:

1) Belief in the non-existence of all gods is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. *Some* atheists *also* believe in the non-existence of all gods.

2) Believing in the existence of something without evidence of it isn`t the same as believing in the non-existence of that something.

Undetectable pixies are responsible for all flight - they use their magic to hold up insects, birds, planes, helicopters, etc. There`s no evidence they exist, of course - they`re undetectable!

Is believing that to be true the same thing as believing it to be not true?
0
Reply
Male 997
@CrakrJak That is seriously wrong assumption. The militant atheists you`re thinking about don`t hate `god` they hate the harm from things done in their beliefs name. Why do Buddhists get less hate then Muslims or ~Christians? Less negative things make it intot he media being done in it`s name.

You want to pray for yourself no problem. You want to pray for me, it`s patronising and rude saying im a sinner and need salvation. But some atheists take it the other way and see it as , at least you care enough about me within your beliefs to try and save me. But once again it`s not hating a `god` it`s hating what people are doing in it`s name. And when you think about it, all relgions claim to be tolerant and bout all being equal under god, then practice what you preach and don`t victimise people for being different *cough* gay *cough*
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]One`s personal faith OR philosophy cannot be compared to a fictional movie that everyone accepts as fiction.[/quote]

Why not?

[quote]I think Atheists have faith in their beliefs too, [/quote]

That`s because you can`t understand the concept of not having faith, so you assume that anyone who doesn`t have your particular faith must have a different one.

Atheism is not a belief, so you`re doubly wrong to say that atheists have faith in their beliefs (although an atheist may also have some beliefs, atheism isn`t a belief).

[quote]we humans cannot (yet) explain ALL the mysteries of the Universe, so some `faith` is required.[/quote]

No, it isn`t.

If I don`t understand how something works, I can say "I don`t understand how that works". I don`t have to make something up and declare it to be true because I have faith that it is. I am able to admit a lack of knowledge. I don`t really understand why some people aren
0
Reply
Male 997
@HolyGod Point 5cats is making maybe not in the best way is.

Atheists cannot know their is no supreme powerful being which created us, any more than a bible basher knows there is a god. And believing there is no good is having faith in that idea.

Where as the correct response would be to be Agnostic. Which is we cannot not know if there is a god or not.
0
Reply
Male 7,915
5Cats

"Faith there is no God is just the same as faith in God from MY POV, eh?"

So you have faith there is no Santa Claus and that is JUST the same as a 4 yr old`s faith that there is?
0
Reply
Male 36,469
[quote]That`s like being angry at Santa or the Easter Bunny.[/quote]
@Gerry1, I have `Easter Bunny` issues... :-/

One`s personal faith OR philosophy cannot be compared to a fictional movie that everyone accepts as fiction.
I think Atheists have faith in their beliefs too, we humans cannot (yet) explain ALL the mysteries of the Universe, so some `faith` is required.

Faith there is no God is just the same as faith in God from MY POV, eh? Just mine, feel free to have a different faith, er, belief!
0
Reply
Male 881
Godzilla isn`t a state sponsored movie, so of course the religious nut jobs can`t even make a good analogy.
0
Reply
Male 7,915
Crakr

"Of course atheists are angry at God, it`s why they are atheists. They are the "I hate God" club."

Hahaha. I hate your god as much as you hate thor or zeus.

"As Denogginzer said, "At least the Japanese will still let you enjoy a Godzilla movie without demanding the removal of all Godzilla related references from the culture."

POP CULTURE. I doubt godzilla infects their government and politics the way god does ours. I have ZERO problem with god in movies.
0
Reply
Female 233
JD I think you just restored my faith in humanity for today. Thanks for that.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Of course atheists are angry at God, it`s why they are atheists. They are the "I hate God" club.

As Denogginzer said, "At least the Japanese will still let you enjoy a Godzilla movie without demanding the removal of all Godzilla related references from the culture."

The only problem with the metaphor is, the Japanese actually love Gojira.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I strongly agree with the post`s metaphor, too. I`ve been asked that question far too many times someone has asked me what church I go to (that`s an acceptable conversation starter here in the South). When I answer, "Oh, I don`t attend church. I don`t believe in God." people inevitably say, "Why are you angry at God?!" Sigh.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Where I have issues (and if I`ve said it once, I`ve said it a thousand times) is when folks use religion to discriminate, especially when they get said bigotry codified into law. That`s when I have a problem with it. Otherwise, to each his own. I just believe that your freedom ends at the tip of your nose (or sure as hell at the tip of mine!), you know?
0
Reply
Male 4,746
If other Atheists don`t want to join in the fight, I can`t blame them, but to turn a blind eye to the evil religion is perpetuating, is just wrong.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
Religion was created as a way to control the masses. It`s done a great job of it. The Atheist in the article is taking a stance of sitting back and doing nothing, allowing religion to continue to poison our society. On that fact alone, I can`t take anything he says with any degree of seriousness.

We need to be as vocal as possible. Reach out to others so they know they are not alone. It may take another hundred years, but eventually I hope that religion can be put to rest. The only way that is going to happen is if Atheists continue to be vocal. Continue to add support to other atheists. To not stand for have our kids brainwashed with lunacy.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Thanks JD, you show a real Humanism there, and you are to be commended for it. :-)
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Patch, doctrinaire much? Everyone must believe what *I* believe about the ultimate questions about existence or else? Read the rest of the article in full, you`re exhibit A of what he`s talking about.

Personally I don`t care whether you call ultimate existence YHVH, Jesus, Allah, Isis, Thor, or Tao, as long as you`re free to practice it...
0
Reply
Male 625
@Queenzira

Yeah, that is a good read. As an atheist, I`ve thought many times of weighing in on these ...erm, "debates", but at the end of the day, the worst thing that could happen is I might actually win the argument. Life on this rock is hard enough as it is. If your religion gets you through your day and inspires you to be a good person, I`m all for it.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
Not sure about that, QueenZira. The fact that he calls Christopher Hitchens’s statement "“religion poisons everything,” a "catchy but wrong-headed dictum" shows where he lies.

Religion does poison everything. It is everything that is wrong with this World and is evil to the core. It hurts, mains and kills. It is a terrible cancer that needs to be cut out. Sitting back and letting everyone "Believe what they want to believe" only lets it perpetuate. We need to educate and work actively toward removing it from our society.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
As long as a prospective presidential candidate didn`t subscribe to some extremist end times theology/ theocratic bent, why should it matter what religion they profess or what they call their god(s)? The presidency is supposed to be open to every citizen, no religious test imposed...

Anyway, great reading for believers and non believers alike, "Athiests, a rant."
0
Reply
Male 4,746
@Denogginizer
How does it not crumble? I can give you thousands of examples. Faith is just a way of glossing over the truth.

How can a God create billions of humans, make them be born somewhere that isn`t Christian (Making them instantly into something else) and then condemn them to Hell for all eternity? He put them there in the first place. So, is God an evil ass hat or simply not real?

I have thousands of these...
0
Reply
Male 7,915
Denogginizer

"I voted for Romney and he believes Joseph Smith read golden tablets out of a hat."

Sure. However he believes 90% of the same basic s.hit you do. So answer my question. Would you be ok with our President regularly conversing with and asking advice from Lord xenu?
0
Reply
Male 820
HolyGod - I voted for Romney and he believes Joseph Smith read golden tablets out of a hat.

Patchouly - It`s faith. I was raised in the church, but I don`t consider any of it brainwashing. I have examined it, but it doesn`t crumble apart for me because of faith. You either have it or you don`t. You assume because I`m religious that I`m scared and ignorant, but you don`t know me. You`re making an assumption based on your own prejudice. I`m not going to argue to subject because I know where you stand on the issue and I`ve never seen you change your stance on a topic. You don`t want to actually have a discussion, you just want to talk at me. I`m out, God bless.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
Denogginizer:
"Judge people by their actions, not by their stereotype."
----

Why do you think we are so enthusiastic toward anti-religion? Religious people follow something because they were told to. If you stopped to examine it, it crumbles apart. There is no substance to it at all. It`s blatantly obvious that it is 100% not real, yet you guys insist on following it despite the proof. I understand you`re scared, but don`t let that make you stupid. Don`t follow something blindly because you were told to. Ask questions. Look at the mountain of evidence and, if after all of that you still believe, then either the brainwashing is too complete or you just don`t have the capacity to wrap your head around it and, in that case, there really is no hope for you.
0
Reply
Male 7,915
Denogginizer

" I don`t agree with Scientology or Mormonism, but what matters more to me is the behavior of the people. Tom Cruise is a loony, not for his belief, but for his actions."

So if we had a scientologist president who had conversations with Xenu before making a decision on whether to start a war you would be perfectly OK with it?
0
Reply
Male 1,497
lol
0
Reply
Male 820
No. I don`t agree with Scientology or Mormonism, but what matters more to me is the behavior of the people. Tom Cruise is a loony, not for his belief, but for his actions. I`m a Christian and I despise the West Borough Baptist Church people. I work with a Mormon and we get along great. Judge people by their actions, not by their stereotype.
0
Reply
Male 7,915
Denogginizer

"In your opinion. Just because you don`t understand something doesn`t mean you can mock the people that do."

You`ve never mocked scientology or mormonism? Keep in mind those people are JUST as convinced as you that what they believe is the real truth and the rest of us simply don`t understand.
0
Reply
Male 820
"By the way, belief in religion is not "thinking" it is simply accepting."
In your opinion. Just because you don`t understand something doesn`t mean you can mock the people that do. Comparing Godzilla and God is apples and oranges, but only if you understand both sides. If you don`t get it, I can see how you could make the analogy.
0
Reply
Male 7,915
Denogginizer

"You just keep right on discriminating against people who think differently than you."

Yes. I`m sure that if Obama said that he had regular conversations with Godzilla, or Santa, or the Leprechaun that lives on his shoulder before he made decisions you`d be totally accepting of it since he was just "thinking differently than you."

By the way, belief in religion is not "thinking" it is simply accepting.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@BoredFrank

[quote]Atheists don`t believe in any god or Godzilla.[/quote]
That was the point.

[quote]That`s just stupid.[/quote]
... and you missed it.
0
Reply
Male 820
You just keep right on discriminating against people who think differently than you.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
That`s just stupid.

Atheists don`t believe in any god or Godzilla.

So assuming atheists are angry at a god they don`t even believe in is stupid. Of course I`m talking about religious people, so stupid is the order of the day.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

That`s like being angry at Santa or the easter bunny.
0
Reply
Male 7,915
Denogginizer

At least the Japanese aren`t dumb enough to have a leader who talks to godzilla before making a decision about starting a war responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

No atheist is picketing the Noah movie, however when you start having imaginary characters affect real life people it is slightly different.
0
Reply
Male 820
At least the Japanese will still let you enjoy a Godzilla movie without demanding the removal of all Godzilla related references from the culture.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
True. I don`t o around making a point about being an atheist but sometimes it crops up when slight aquaintances introduce god into the conversation (pretty rare in England, but it does happen). Or someone knocks on the door to give me the good news.

When I say, `I think I should tell you I am an atheist so asking me what I think god feels about something is not going to be helpful.` as often a not I get `Did something happen to turn you against god?`

0
Reply
Male 938
Link: Asking An Atheist [Pic] [Rate Link] - I agree with this metaphor.
0
Reply